Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that David Cameron should resign?

542 replies

deeedeee · 07/04/2016 21:25

Presiding over a government that is trying to spin doctors and teachers into militants ,

Supporting a chancellor that has failed to reduce the deficit by his own standards and has delivered two hated and u turning budgets in a row, over the death of the British Steel Industry, is attacking renewable energy in times of climate change, is taking support from the ill and disabled is and NOW he has admitted benefiting from TAX AVOIDANCE????!!!!
This is all wrong. How many more years of this?

OP posts:
LadyWithLapdog · 13/04/2016 20:41

He lied about three times before he told another thing (yo ge confirmed or not as lie st a later stage). He lied three times. Believe him a fourth time? You'd be stupid to.

Eustace2016 · 13/04/2016 21:05

He hasn't lied at all and anyone saying he has may well get sued for libel.

He has bit by bit given mroe information which is not sensible -either you saying everything at once or you say financial affairs are private. I support the latter view and I don't think he has done the right thing in declaring ajny of this and he was a fool in the last 2 years to talk about morals and tax.

He is a law maker. He can make tax laws but he should not talk about morality. He is not a tax priest.

Flashbangandgone · 13/04/2016 21:48

Exactly how did he lie?

He said he didn't have any shares overseas... He doesn't... He had shares before becoming PM, before he was able to influence tax policy, but that's different.

It seems lying has been given a new definition by some of 'not providing all information possibly pertaining to an issue you are being questioned about'. This is preposterous!

If someone asked me whether I had points on my driving licence, I believe I would be telling the truth if I said 'no, I have no points' as I don't have any... But it seems some on here believe I'd have lied if I didn't also add that I'd had 3 points 10 years ago, and another 3, 2 years before that for speeding in a 30 mph zone.... And even if I'd added that I might still be accused of lying for not adding a parking ticket a while back!

I would respect people's annoyance if they felt the PM should have been more transparent (though I believe he was reasonable in his responses), but not those who are determined to liable him whatever the facts may be just because they hate his party's policies!

Oddoneout63 · 13/04/2016 21:56

"YaySirNaySir

He won't resign, he's entitled. He's rich and avoids tax like most rich people"

Since when is being rich a crime? Are you suggesting poor people wouldn't dream of avoiding tax (as I pocket my cash in hand)?

LadyWithLapdog · 13/04/2016 22:01

I think he is lying. Is that better? No one can censor me for what I think. I think Dave is Dodgy. I call him Dodgy Lying Dave. Is that ok? Not saying he is, just what I think he is.

Flashbangandgone · 13/04/2016 22:07

Barely better.... Why do you think he is lying? His statements don't support that view.....or is it just an irrational gut feeling that you feel entitled have to because you hate the Tories.

LadyWithLapdog · 13/04/2016 22:15

His lips are moving. Hope that explains.

TheAlchemist101 · 13/04/2016 22:20

Flashbang love the driving points analogy.

why disclose your life story if someone asks the wrong question

LadyWithLapdog · 13/04/2016 22:31

Yeah, sure, why not play the idiot that you haven't understood the question. FFS.

LineyReborn · 13/04/2016 22:33

In my world, not telling the full truth when it's important to be truthful, as early as possible, is being dishonest and tantamount to a lie.

That's what I've taught my children, anyway.

oddcommentator · 15/04/2016 09:29

So those that think he is lying must have access to information which contradicts his statements. Do please share.

I get he is wealthy but on all the evidence that has been presented and pored over and presented by accountants (independent and not allowed to fib by law) tells me
a) He sold all shares before becoming PM - and whilst in opposition. i.e before he had any sway at all over any tax policy.

b) the shares in the Blairemore were above board and entirely on-shore for tax purposes. The company was registered with HMRC and he paid all taxes due
c) since becoming PM he has waived the tax free allowance given to Prime Ministers (introduced by Clement Attlee and increased to £20k by TB). By my guestimate therefore he pays an extra 10k in tax a year more than he needs.

d) you will also see that he receives no personal allowance. (per the existing tax laws)
e) He rents out his property whilst living in No10 which is never permanent and for those that enjoy watching it, when you lose as PM you move out that night.

This really is all transparent and above board.

now I get you dont like him, but unless you have evidence to the contrary - which i really think you dont - then think about who benefits from running the story?

I suspect many on the opposition benches would quite like the story to go away - and would rather wish it hadnt been flamed by some who indulge in a bit of toff bashing.

Peregrina · 15/04/2016 16:07

when you lose as PM you move out that night.
You did in Harold Wilson's days, but not now.

You are back to the question though why didn't Cameron explain the position fully at the beginning? As an ex PR man he ought to have realised that his half explanations with bits of information being dragged out of him would not look good.

LadyWithLapdog · 15/04/2016 22:48

What additional info do you want? He's lied repeatedly about this and other matters. Here's one: "thd NHS is safe in our hands".

Peregrina · 15/04/2016 23:06

He could have sold his London property - he still has a home in his constituency, which is where he would be on the night of the election. A property which, in his case, is within commuting distance of London, certainly for the short term. So let's not have crocodile tears about poor Mr Cameron and his family potentially being homeless if he were to lose the election.

GiddyOnZackHunt · 15/04/2016 23:21

Most MPs have a London base as well as their constituency home. I think it is fair that he should be able to keep it as long (as he doesn't expense it) because he didn't have a choice about staying there. Iirc Sam Cam didn't really want to move.

Peregrina · 16/04/2016 00:17

Didn't Norma Major not particularly like Downing Street and spent most of her time in her constituency home? Presumable the Majors must have sold their London residence when he became PM as the Blairs sold theirs?

I don't think anyone is saying that Cameron shouldn't keep his London home - but it's just a bit rich to pretend 'we are all in this together' when you are making a fortune from letting a property but at the same time hitting people with the bedroom tax, which includes disabled people who need a 'spare' room for medical equipment.

GiddyOnZackHunt · 16/04/2016 01:27

Peregrina don't for one minute think I have any time for Dave's man of the people schtick. It makes me sick that these people lecture on hard work paying when they have not the remotest idea what hard work is. When they avoid more tax than the average person pays in tax and call it planning.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page